Feb 24, 2012 Posted by Bitter in Civil Liberties | 7 comments

Arrested without Evidence over Accusation of Gun Ownership

There’s a story out of Canada about a guy who was arrested and told by officers that he was being charged with possession of a firearm. Normally, you would expect this to happen after they found someone in possession of a firearm.

He was given an attorney who was informed of the charges and even had a date set with a judge for a bail hearing for this charge. At no point did he ever possess a firearm, but they kept him locked up and moved forward with the charges.

With his wife hauled down to the station and his children taken in for questioning by the relevant agency for possible endangerment issues, he signed a document that allowed police to search his home. They did and there was still no firearm found in his possession. Finally, they let him go free.

The evidence seems to come from a he said/she said scenario because his 4-year-old daughter drew a picture of a firearm and said the guy holding it was her daddy who would fight off bad guys and monsters. Yes, a child who thinks monsters are real was used as evidence for the arrest instead of, you know, actual possession of a firearm.

Sebastian and I were talking about this, and it’s not actually that easy to pinpoint where things broke down beyond what seems to be an irrational fear of firearms and the mandate to report everything to authorities before anyone stops to ask logical questions.

Blame the police? They definitely take the blame for actually arresting the guy without question, but I don’t know the standards of arresting people in Canada.

Blame the social services workers who called police? They have to report it to them if they think a crime may have happened. What if they were told the little girl was drawing graphic scenes of her father killing “bad guys” that came along with a story of how he does this around her? If they didn’t see the drawing yet or actually overhear the interaction with the teacher, then that can sound pretty damn bad and very criminal in nature.

Blame the principal who called the social services workers who were then required to call police? What if she was told something similar to what I outline for the social services worker? Or, maybe it is her fault for misrepresenting what the teacher told her?

Ultimately, I do think that someone should have stopped the process and really inquired just what the hell actually happened in regards to the drawing and how the teacher asked questions about it. However, depending on how stories are passed along, concerns about a potential crime could continue to be blown way out of proportion. Ever played a game of telephone? Yeah, same thing, only with real lives on the line.

But, when we have a bunch of bureaucrats who believe they are there to do good no matter what impact it might have on innocent people and who fear not following an exact protocol that makes no accommodation for stopping to ask questions, then things like this will happen more often regardless of the country. At some point, we have to demand accountability from those who allow these things to get out of hand. Unfortunately, that’s not something that’s easy to do, especially with many protections in place for staff in these various jobs.

Join the Conversation (7 comments)

Feb 14, 2012 Posted by Sebastian in Civil Liberties, Philadelphia | 15 comments

Federal Lawsuit Over Philly Open Carry Incident

The federal complaint can be found here. The media story about the lawsuit is here. I’ve read over the complaint. In addition to suing over the February 2011 incident last year, he’s also suing over two prior incidents with the Philadelphia police. He’s suing up the chain of command to reach Ramsey, the Philadelphia Police Commissioner. Section 1983 doesn’t just allow you to sue the individual officers, you can sue all the way up the chain to anyone responsible for overseeing and training officers. The agents of the PPD are being sued in their individual capacities, which means the plaintiff here needs to overcome qualified immunity. If successful, he will be able to recover damages. This is looking like it’ll be an easy case here:

Join the Conversation (15 comments)

Feb 4, 2012 Posted by Sebastian in Civil Liberties, Government | 10 comments

On Ginsburg’s Statement to Egypt

When I heard of Justice Ginsburg’s statement before an Egyptian audience today, I have to admit I just couldn’t work up the amount of outage as many on the right. Many folks fail to consider that a good part of our constitution is strictly mechanical, and represents compromises brought about by folks who were facing the daunting task of bringing 13 separate sovereigns together into some kind of national Republic. Much of the mechanics of the US constitution doesn’t translate into the political cultures of other countries, even if the overarching principles are worth studying (for which I would include to RKBA to be among those principles).

Eugene Volokh also sticks up for Justice Ginsburg:

And it might well be that Egypt might be well-served by a very different approach than the U.S. Constitutions — for instance, with regard to relations between the federal government and more local governments, with regard to whether to have a Presidential system or a parliamentary system, with regard to how hard the constitution would be to amend, with regard to how judges are selected and how long they serve, with regard to how the President is selected, with regard to the relationship between the two chambers of the legislature, with regard to whether all executive officials work for the President or whether some are independently elected or selected, with regard to just how to craft the criminal justice system, and so on. (And here I just speak of the big picture questions, and not more specific details.) Remember that even our own states’ constitutions differ in many respects, especially with regard to separation of powers and the selection and tenure of judges, from the U.S. Constitution. Again, that the constitutional text, coupled with a wide range of extratextual political and legal practices, has worked well for us over 200+ years doesn’t tell us that it would work well for Egypt for the coming years.

I tend to agree, and with the rest of his argument. I certainly have many disagreements with Justice Ginsburg’s interpretations of the U.S. Constitution, but in many ways the US Constitution reflects the unique circumstances of this country’s founding, and continuing political struggles, that is not necessarily reflective of the political struggles in other countries. To be sure, it outlines many guarantees I believe are universal, but most of the constitution revolves around structural components which are arguably suited to our culture, but perhaps not others. It would, for instance, be difficult to imagine the French arguing over the meaning of interstate commerce, to the extent Americans do today, and have done since the founding.

Join the Conversation (10 comments)

Jan 24, 2012 Posted by Sebastian in Civil Liberties | 17 comments

Banning Perfume

SayUncle notes that New Hampshire is considering a ban on perfume for public workers, using some of the same logic that proponents of smoking bans were proffering. Everyone’s ran into women who smell like they bathe in perfume, and certainly there are men who seem to shower in Aqua Velva. But it seems to me that people aren’t willing to surrender much personal discomfort for the sake of freedom. Bitter is asthmatic, and perfume is a trigger for her, but her philosophy is not to make her problem everyone else’s; there are discomforts that must be tolerated in respecting the freedom and autonomy of others. This form of extreme selfishness is the same mentality that is getting peanut butter and jelly banned from elementary schools. I’d also note that this form of selfishness is highly prevalent among our opponents as well.

Join the Conversation (17 comments)

Jan 19, 2012 Posted by Sebastian in Civil Liberties, Current Events | 5 comments

SOPA and Gun Control

From PJ Media:

Q: What does the proposed SOPA (“Stop Online Piracy Act”) legislation have in common with gun control?

A: Both would punish the innocent for the bad acts of a guilty few.

The article proceeds to tear apart the logic of gun control as being virtually identical to that of SOPA. I had never realized until I started interacting with gun control fanatics more how they really are incapable of drawing a distinction between responsible individuals and misusers. Their position is quite simple that because we have no good way of predetermining whether someone is responsible, or will misuse, we have to assume everyone will misuse. This is a poor basis for a free society.

Join the Conversation (5 comments)

Jan 18, 2012 Posted by Sebastian in Civil Liberties | 2 comments

Inconsistency in Some SOPA Opposition

Eugene Volokh notes the hefty amount of corporate free speech going on today, and points out that many of the SOPA opponents were derisive of the idea that corporations can have protective speech. I generally think it’s poor business practice for corporations to get involved with controversial political issues, but in the case of something like SOPA, which has little if any real grassroots support, it’s probably safe. But while I think it’s a poor idea for companies to insert themselves into politics, I believe they have a right to speak.

Join the Conversation (2 comments)

Jan 18, 2012 Posted by Sebastian in Civil Liberties | 4 comments

Some Amusing SOPA Related Content

I won’t be participating in SOPA black out day, since changing my theme is a pain in the rear, and I’m not really a big enough fish to have as much impact as Wikipedia and Google. But I do want to raise awareness, which I can do by linking to some humorous pieces folks have done to promote blackout day, including editing this note from MPAA Chairman and former Senator from Connecticut, Chris Dodd. We certainly heartily approve of this kind of mockery, especially directed to Senator Dodd, who’s family has been an enemy of freedom and the Second Amendment through their respective political careers.

Also amusing is this SOPA public service announcement. Just a warning, however: while it may be a funny cartoon, it’s not… entirely appropriate. You’ll see what I mean. If you’d like to take action against SOPA, visit either Google or Wikipedia, who are pulling out all the stops to save the Internet from the critters and the MPAA.

Join the Conversation (4 comments)

Jan 12, 2012 Posted by Sebastian in Civil Liberties, Government | 8 comments

Officer Harless of Canton, OH Fired

John Richardson notes that the City of Canton has decided to let this particular loose cannon go. I wish I could say this is a case of a town doing the right thing, but I suspect the primary reason is that Daniel Harless was a walking potential 1983 suit just waiting to happen, and I would point out that 1983 allows one to sue all the way up the chain of command.

I’d say justice served, but I have to agree with Uncle on this one. If I threatened to shoot someone dead, who was not threatening me in any way, while I was open carrying a pistol, I’d be in jail already.

Join the Conversation (8 comments)

Jan 11, 2012 Posted by Sebastian in Civil Liberties | 2 comments

Bloomberg = Chavez?

Following up on Bitter’s post about Bloomberg taking up a modern day temperance movement, Rational Gun takes a look at an issue by issue comparison, and I have to say that the parallels are creepy. I notice Rational Gun didn’t take a look at nanny state alcohol laws, but sure enough, Chavez is into that too:

On Monday, the national tax collection agency SENIAT announced changes regarding taxes on alcohol and cigarettes in an attempt to reduce their consumption. SENIAT Superintendent Jose Vielma Mora explained that the new increases in taxes on these goods are aimed at “lessening the moral, economic, and social consequences of their use.” Mora added that the communal councils will be consulted before granting liquor licenses in order to prevent alcohol consumption near schools, churches, or cultural centers.

I don’t know if Bloomberg is consciously trying to keep pace with the Venezuelan dictator, but he’s certainly doing a bang up job. Bloomberg is the kind of person I don’t believe can be trusted with power. Hopefully after this current third term, New Yorkers will be sick of him. The rest of the country sure is.

Join the Conversation (2 comments)

Jan 3, 2012 Posted by Sebastian in 2nd Amendment, Civil Liberties | 2 comments

Protecting Technology

The Second Amendment is a bit unique among our constitutional rights. In order to protect some rights, our Constitution places obligations on the government, as is the case in Fifth Amendment, which requires to government to indict via grand jury, and the Sixth Amendment, which requires the government to provide “a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.” The rest of the Amendments generally forbid the government from doing things, like infringing on speech, quartering troops, or inflicting cruel and unusual punishment. The Second is not different in this regard, but I’ve heard some of our opponents in the gun control movement try to argue the Second Amendment has to be a unique case because it protects dangerous objects, and no other amendment protects objects. In that context, I find this recent law review by Eugene Volokh interesting, in regards to what constitutes “the press.”

But other judges and scholars—including the Citizens United majority and Justice Brennan—have argued that the “freedom . . . of the press” does not protect the press-as-industry, but rather protects everyone’s use of the printing press (and its modern equivalents) as a technology. People or organizations who occasionally rent the technology, for instance by buying newspaper space, broadcast time, or the services of a printing company, are just as protected as newspaper publishers or broadcasters.

Professor Volokh’s review takes a look at early case law, and demonstrates that protection of the press as a technology is the predominant one in American jurisprudence. It is actually surprising how much the early media resembled what’s grown organically from the Internet.

But it shows that the Second Amendment is hardly unique among rights in protecting the right to own an object. Implicit in freedom of the press is the right to own one, or the modern equivalent, which would be a computer, and an Internet connection. Computers and Internet connections can certainly be subject to heinous abuses, such as distribution of child pornography. One could even imagine it possible to kill many people by hacking into the right public works systems and disrupting them.

Yet, in most cases, the Government is quite limited in how it can restrict access to the press. Could the government ban child molesters from owning a computer? From an Internet connection? Actually, this is an active issue, currently. But far from being an extreme point of view, it’s completely justifiable to question whether the government can require a license for owning a firearm, when it can do no such thing for a printing press or a computer. Could the government even subject computer buyers, or Internet subscribers, to an instant background check? That’s probably of dubious constitutionality. So why is it to radical to suggest guns be treated in the same manner? It is only radical because our opponents, who are extremists, say it is. But in the realm of constitutional law, it’s a legitimate question.

Join the Conversation (2 comments)